A Bad Idea that Deserves a Try The surge isn't going to work. Let's try it anyway.

Reason Online ^ | January 22, 2007 | Jonathan Rauch

[Witchman63]

So why shouldn't the Democratic Congress block such an unpromising strategy? Three reasons point, I think, independently in the same direction.

First, the Constitution. It provides for one commander-in-chief, not 536. A determined president can evade all but the tightest congressional attempts to override his military decisions, and any sufficiently tight congressional strictures are likely to emasculate the presidency and fracture the Congress.

Second, politics. Blocking the president's last-resort plan would divide the country for years to come. Many Republicans would believe that the war was winnable and that Democrats lost it. If the United States is going to leave Iraq, it should do so when even Republicans agree that there is little reason to stay -- which they will, if Bush's Hail Mary pass fails.

Third, morality. America has not quite discharged its debt to Iraq. Apart from evacuating as many as possible of those Iraqis who personally aided the American effort, the United States can do nothing for moderate and peace-loving Iraqis if the Baghdad government is determined to press or abet a sectarian agenda. A tragedy will unfold. But if there is any chance that the Iraqi government might yet be salvageable, then the United States owes it to the Iraqis to find out.

[Map Kernow]

First, the Constitution. It provides for one commander-in-chief, not 536. A determined president can evade all but the tightest congressional attempts to override his military decisions, and any sufficiently tight congressional strictures are likely to emasculate the presidency and fracture the Congress.

Uh-hunh. The Constitution also gives Congress, not the President, the power to declare war. It also gives Congress, not the President, the power of appropriations. It designates the President as "Commander in Chief" of the armed forces of the United States, but it says nothing to imply that the President may assume dictatorial powers, abrogate the Constitution, or ignore the will of Congress or the people during war.

You'd think that that might give Congress a voice in what was going on in Iraq and elsewhere American forces are deployed in conflicts.

You'd think so...

[TexasCajun]

Reinforcements == Support for existing troops in Iraq

Surge = = More American Infidels to terrorize muslims.

[pissant]

It is not the surge that will prevail. It's the fact that we are taking the gloves off.

[epluribus_2]

Someday, someone on the Left will wake up and realize that the whole antiwar/antiwar "movement" has been unwittingly racist. We marched a million troops to confront Hitler's armies for essentially the same threats that Saddam and Bin Laden have presented the U.S. But the French, British, and Germans themselves were never accused of being to culturally limited to ever be expected to want or be able to retain democratic values. The left had better be careful this is not pointed out someday. Leaving 50 million muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan to the likes of Zarqawi (FBOH/RIP), Saddam (FBOH/RIP), ahmedinajihaad (FBOH), nosedroolah (FBOH), etc. would be like shipping railcars and cyanide barrels to the third reich.

[gcruse]

This is crazy! You know we should call it a day.
Sound advice, great advice,
Let's throw it away.

Sarah Brightman -- "Too Much in Love to Care"

[Political Junkie Too]

Congress only wants a voice when it's safe to voice the opinion. Why do you think they tried so hard to push off the Iraq vote until after the 2002 elections?

The problem with Democrats today is that they're being held to their vote in 2002, and that vote was held before the mid-term elections. Can you imagine what things would be like if Congress were able to wait until after November 2002 to vote on Iraq?

-PJ

[Map Kernow]

It is not the surge that will prevail. It's the fact that we are taking the gloves off.

And the fact that people like you won't have to deal in any event with the mess that results, gloves on or off.

All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting. ---George Orwell

[pissant]

Never seen ya before, but reading your posts you sound like a chickenshit buchananite.

Get a grip on history, will ya. This MESS you and Pinchy dream about, is called victory. Victory is always brutal and always comes at a price. Iraq is historic not for being a quagmire, but for being so casualty adverse.

Go back to sitting on Cindy's knee.

[Witchman63]

"It is not the surge that will prevail. It's the fact that we are taking the gloves off."


Speaking of the gloves being taken of....

U.S. Forces Raid Iranian Consulate in Iraq, Detain 5 (Update2)

By Marc Wolfensberger and Robin Stringer

Jan. 11 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. forces in Iraq raided Iran's consulate in the northern city of Arbil and detained five staff members, a state-run Iranian news service said.

The U.S. soldiers disarmed guards and broke open the consulate's gate before seizing documents and computers during the operation, which took place today at about 5 a.m. local time, the Islamic Republic News Agency said. There was no immediate information on whether any of those detained are diplomats.

The raid follows a warning yesterday to Iran and Syria from President George W. Bush in his address to the American people on a new strategy for Iraq. Bush accused Iran and Syria of aiding the movement of ``terrorists and insurgents'' in and out of Iraq and said the U.S. will ``seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies.''

Coalition forces arrested six people during ``routine security operations'' in the Arbil area, the U.S. military said in an e-mailed statement. The military didn't confirm that the consulate was raided and didn't say whether any of those detained were Iranians.

The operation was ``part of an ongoing effort by coalition forces targeting individuals involved in activities aimed at the killing of Iraqi citizens and coalition forces,'' the military said.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a90DLQrWr.YY&refer=us

[Witchman63]

And....

Deal reached to keep weapons off streets: Sadr City mayor

By Qassim Abdul-Zahra
Canadian Press


Thursday, January 25, 2007


BAGHDAD - The mayor of Baghdad's Sadr City says he has reached an agreement with political and religious groups to keep weapons off the streets of the heavily populated Shiite militia stronghold and has presented the deal to U.S. and Iraqi government officials in an apparent attempt to avoid a military crackdown on the area.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=39884a3b-33fa-4d3d-a6f3-ed0402d08a83&k=81586

[Just sayin]

Congress was tasked with the call and they made the choice to defer the call to the President. That is what the Use of Force Resolution was all about. For anyone to say Congress had no choice is to present a pathetic lie .

Congress has always kept the power to pull the funding as the check and balance on the Executive. Both parties have been in control of Congress now and neither has pulled funding. If this action was so wrong as some say, then funding would have been pulled as the first order of business in this Congress. The fact it was not is quite telling. It shows that the action does not match the rhetoric.

You might care to take note of the War Powers act as well. You know, the one passed by Congress. Maybe you could help me out with something. Who would Congress declare war on in the traditional sense? Why isn't the Majority party declaring war this very minute? In the absence of that, why are they not eliminating funding this very minute?

[Just sayin]

Hopefully that would be a futile attempt.

[BlueNgold]

While yes the Congress does the the power of appropriations, there is nothing in the contitution giving it the right to make policy via appropriation. That, however, is exactly what the congress has done for years upon years.

In theory, the Congress should approve a budget for the DoD, and it should be up to the President and his executives to administer said budget. To infer that congress must agree with every policy decision of the executive would give them rights of micromanagement, far beyond their contitutional role of advice and consent.

[Witchman63]

I was pointing out that the mere threat of the "surge" has those aholes scrambling to make nice. Personally I think Sadr City(shiite terrorist stronghold) should be made an example of, as well as Fallujah(sunni terrorist stronghold). Cordon off both cities, announce that all citizens who wish to leave can do so unarmed through checkpoints there to catch the occasional disguised known terrorist and then level both areas. No house to house search, just level the bastards. Now thats "gloves off".

[agincourt1415]

This is my idea.

Make Baghdad a NO DRIVE ZONE for 4 weeks.

Treat it like crossing a border, search every truck, every car, and let them strip if necessary to check for bomb vests.

Many Checkpoints, Many Iraqi Police at the check points under supervision of the the US Army.

Plus, the house to house search, in the problem neighborhoods.

[Just sayin]

Isn't it quite telling that everytime someone steps up to answer their little calls to jihad they duck for cover? I am in agreement with you, a Fallujah style operation is full well warranted and it might just come to that in Sadr city.

I would point out though that seeing them stand down would be quite beneficial from the perspective of presenting quick gains demonstrating progress.

Here is the basic standoff as I see it. They say 'you leave and we stop blowing up bombs'. We say 'no, you stop blowing up bombs and we will leave'. This is where the 'surge' comes in. W upped the anty with a third option. More bombs means more soldiers come in.

Sadr should be a dead man but us taking that step, as opposed to Iraqi forces taking that step, creates it's own set of problems. From that perspective, getting them to stand down in this way could prove to be quite positive. Especially if we can cut of the Iranian money and supply lines that afford him and his thugs the ability to cause so much trouble.

I could have it pegged wrong but I think major progress is afoot. I think Democrats and even some fool Republicans are about to regret their current and past positions big time.

[RobbyS]

Oh. Al Kayda and Iran are making so much noise that you can't hear them, right?

[Witchman63]

I could be wrong but I don't think any war, be it a civil internal war or a war between two countries has ever ended in any kind of lasting peace by having the two or more parties fight to a stand still or fight to the bargaining table. The only lasting peace and civil order that comes from it happens when one of the parties prevails over the other by making the other party realise that anything other than surrender is unbearable. Don't get me wrong, I don't mean that we should side with the majority shiites over the minority sunnis but that we should side with all pro govt peoples over all anti govt forces. If a roadside bomb goes of, we level a quarter mile radius around where it went off. If a sniper fires from a rooftop we level the block. See how fast people start turning on the insurgents. If a death squad member is caught then the block he comes from is leveled. Same goes for police caught aiding and abetting the enemy. The people will become very peaceful and cooperative or their towns will become very flat.

[airborne]

Are the Dems afraid President Bush is going to fail?

No! They're afraid he's going to succeed!!!